Questions and Answers

with Ngak’chang Rinpoche

Beyond Bodhisattvabuddhayana

Questioner: Rinpoche, you have referred to the rôle of
‘irritation’ in a practitioner’s evolution from one yana to
the next. I would very much like to know what takes one from
Bodhisattvabuddhayana to whatever comes next?

Rinpoche: If we look at Sutra, one can say that Sutra has an
experientially
common base; that there is nothing in Sutra that one cannot understand with
one’s regular intelligence. There is no special experience that is needed
beyond being a human being and having the interest to study. This does not
apply to Tantra. Tantra has an experientially unique base, which means that you
need a special experience to understand it. Without that experience, it is
incomprehensible. It has its logic, but its logic is not accessible without
experience. The logic of Tantra is the logic of paradox, because it is the
logic of emptiness and form: form is emptiness and emptiness is form. One can
start playing with that idea in terms of how everything manifests itself –
the yidam is empty form. Here the irritation is at the level of one’s
speed and capacity; and the realisation is that in terms of emptiness, in terms
of compassion, that that compassion is a far wider, vaster thing than ‘all
sentient beings’ – that that actually permeates everything. In the
context of the Four Naljors, one experiences compassion for namthogs – the
arising of the content of mind. One simply allows whatever arises to arise, one
allows it to dwell, one allows it to dissolve. One finds that there is
appreciation there; this appreciation extends to everything. In terms of Tantra
we talk about compassion as being inseparable from lust – that if you do
not have any lust of any sort, you cannot have any compassion, either. There
has to be desire there. With no desire there is no appreciation. Appreciation
is important.

Q: Rinpoche, why do you say ‘the irritation is at the level of
one’s speed’?

R: One of the important things for any teacher, is that the teacher
has to enjoy his or her student’s neuroses. If a teacher cannot enjoy his
or her student’s neuroses, then he or she cannot be a teacher for that
person. Otherwise these neuroses are simply a collection of ‘sins’,
and this is not workable, particularly from the perspective of Tantra. Whatever
my neurosis is, it is also my enlightened state – this is crucial in terms
of Tantra. So the irritation here—in terms of the transition between
Sutra and Tantra—is one in which one feels the constriction of dividing
neuroses from the enlightened state. One is aware that the enlightened state
pervades; and that all the sentient beings out there who are in a state of
confusion are actually likeable too – that their neuroses are likeable.
If you do not like their neuroses, how can you help them? Like, ‘I will
help you, you miserable little worm, with all your ugliness and all your
horrible yuck there!’. That is not a compassionate stance; that is not
workable. If one cannot perceive the enlightened nature shining through the
neurosis, how can one help a person? And if one sees that shining through the
neurosis, then that neurosis is likeable – it is likeable for its
enlightened content, which is inseparable from the neurotic content. If
one’s teacher happens to be an enlightened being, then this should be
really visible. There has to be appreciation there.